Coastal Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.0319th
  Defense+0.1145th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense36.9%13th
  Defense42.9%38th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2662nd
  Defense+1.2931st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0333rd
  Defense+0.1131st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0717th
  Defense+0.1946th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.6%10th
  Defense48.5%36th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.7%21st
  Defense30.6%40th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7421st
  Defense3.0032nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.4%39th
  Defense17.7%39th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.5%11th
  Defense15.3%44th

Percentiles among the 136 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2025

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Coastal Carolina allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. L
   UVA
2. W
   CHSO
3. L
   ECU
4. W
   USA
5. L
   ODU
6. W
   ULM
7. W
   APP
8. W
   MRSH
9. W
   GAST
10. L
    GASO
11. L
    SC
12. L
    JMU
13. L
    LT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Coastal Carolina.

Players, 2025

1. Samari CollierQB131 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 121st of 231 QBs
   0.61WAR0.34 to 0.88
2. Ja'Vin SimpkinsRB103 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 122nd of 365 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.24
3. Cameron WrightWR28 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 178th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.16
4. Kian AfrookhtehPK15 plays · +0.287 pts/play · 63rd of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
5. Tad HudsonQB198 plays · +0.018 pts/play · 204th of 231 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.28 to 0.41
6. MJ MorrisQB22 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 206th of 231 QBs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
7. Malcolm GillieWR18 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 304th of 451 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.09
8. Jameson TuckerWR15 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 320th of 451 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.08

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Coastal Carolina's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61161180th of 134Roster talent: 611, 80th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15115184th of 134Recruiting: 151, 84th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%65th of 132Returning production: 36%, 65th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.1−15.1119th of 134SP+ rating: −15.1, 119th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2025

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Coastal Carolina's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.10 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at LTQ4 3:49 4th & 10 at CCU 48, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. at LTQ4 7:04 4th & 3 at CCU 32, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs ECUQ3 1:55 4th & 15 at ECU 34, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
4. vs GASTQ3 12:43 4th & 2 at CCU 48, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at GASOQ4 6:32 4th & 7 at CCU 35, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs MRSHQ2 1:05 4th & 1 at CCU 22, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs GASTQ4 4:15 4th & 4 at GAST 45, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs JMUQ3 8:17 4th & 10 at JMU 45, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

18th of 136 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Coastal Carolina's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   UVA
2. W

   CHSO
3. L

   ECU
4. W

   USA
5. L

   ODU
6. W

   ULM
7. W

   APP
8. W

   MRSH
9. W

   GAST
10. L

    GASO
11. L

    SC
12. L

    JMU
13. L

    LT

What moved it, 2025

Every game starts at Coastal Carolina's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard+1.09
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts+0.10
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.65

Game by game

• UVAL 7-48 at UVA19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• CHSOW 13-0 vs CHSO97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +9, Timeouts −1
• ECUL 0-38 vs ECU28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −33
• USAW 38-20 at USA18% → 99%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +82: Scoreboard +64, Clock +3
• ODUL 7-47 at ODU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• ULMW 23-8 vs ULM42% → 99%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +2
• APPW 45-37 at APP25% → 98%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +60, Clock +3
• MRSHW 44-27 vs MRSH37% → 99%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +50, Possession & field position −1
• GASTW 40-27 vs GAST66% → 99%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• GASOL 40-45 at GASO37% → 9%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts +11
• SCL 7-51 at SC5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• JMUL 10-59 vs JMU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11
• LTL 14-23 at LT24% → 4%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2

Points of win probability, from Coastal Carolina's side.

Closest call

CCU 27-21 USA (2021) - Coastal Carolina dropped to a 8.4% win probability before pulling it out.